- 05
- Aug.
- 2024
Editorial – August 4: Lebanon Held Hostage, for Whom and for What?
modified on 02 Sep. 2024 à 10:27 Read : 3 minute(s) A A A
Four years have passed since the massive explosion at the Port of Beirut on August 4, 2020. The investigation remains stalled, as judges are unable to finalize it due to ongoing and barely concealed pressure and threats from Hezbollah.
The August 4 apocalyptic explosion is one of the deadliest and most abhorrent examples of the systematic strategy of destruction, deconstruction, and obstruction perpetrated by the pro-Iranian faction, particularly since 2005, when the Syrian withdrawal effectively granted it near-total control in Lebanon.
How can one not voice profound anger and outrage in the face of such a tragedy, with a toll beyond all understanding: 224 killed (235 according to Beirut 607 website), including teenagers, children, and senior executives in the prime of youth; 7,000 injured; 150 disabled; 77,000 homes destroyed; 300,000 displaced; 178 universities and schools, as well as 26 hospitals and dispensaries damaged; and at least $15 billion in damages and losses, according to figures from the victims' families.
Hezbollah's relentless obstruction of the investigation, combined with its complete lack of ethical regard, starkly highlights its significant political, security, and moral responsibility in this matter. It is well-established that Hezbollah had effective control over the port of Beirut and thus direct oversight of the massive stockpile of ammonium nitrate stored there in an abject and criminal manner. The party’s culpability is further underscored by reliable sources indicating that this ammonium nitrate was being gradually transferred to Syria for the production of explosive barrels dropped on civilians in areas beyond the Assad regime's control.
In addition to its despicable involvement in the Syrian conflict, the August 4 tragedy has profoundly intensified the widespread resentment of many Lebanese people towards Hezbollah … The reason is clear: as the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ chief ally at the border with Israel, Hezbollah has demonstrated through the port disaster an utter disregard for the Lebanese people. Moreover, since October 8, Hezbollah has consistently proved its determination to hold Lebanon hostage, dragging the Lebanese people into a broad and futile warlike venture that is wholly irrelevant to them, either directly or indirectly. This ongoing warlike venture, which has been escalating for ten months and risks evolving into a large-scale conflagration, has resulted in the (needless) deaths of at least 450 young militiamen, turned numerous villages into ruins, forcedly displaced 100,000 residents from southern Lebanon, and further undermined an already struggling national economy.
Given this course of action, which is disconnected with Lebanese realities and the most basic needs of the population, it is difficult not to raise existential questions. For whom, for what purpose are these sacrifices being made, with no horizon or limits in sight? Why should the Lebanese people endure these hardships imposed by armed force? For Hezbollah, the answer is evidently clear: the party's political charter, adopted in the mid-1980s, explicitly pledged absolute allegiance to the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution. By imposing its transnational agenda manu militari, which is entirely devoted to advancing the mullah’s excessive regional ambitions, the pro-Iranian faction has stirred deep-seated hostility among the Lebanese. This resentment is particularly legitimate and warranted, as the Lebanese, alongside the Palestinians, have been suffering the deadliest impacts of the Middle Eastern conflict for over fifty years.
By stubbornly ignoring Lebanon’s vital interests, Hezbollah fails to recognize a crucial factor it cannot avoid: the growing resentment it fuels, with its arrogant and contemptuous attitude, will sooner or later turn against it. Forcibly imposing an element whose ideological stance and course of action are fundamentally opposed to the country’s historical and cultural specifics will inevitably provoke a violent backlash.
Comments